Forum:NPOV Campaigns
---- For those of you who do not understand the next thread: The acronym "NPOV" refers to Neutral Point of View. The encyclopedia project called Wikipedia uses the term to refer to its style of encyclopedia articles not promoting a particular point of view. Those of you participating in Campaigns Wikia, you are '''not' expected to be familiar with "Wikipedia" or "NPOV".'' --Kernigh (who has rarely edited Wikipedia) 17:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC) ---- First of all, can I say that I think this is a great idea. Just one question. Is the NPOV really a good idea on a campaigning site? So far most of the pages I've seen have been a list of the arguments, and I havent really seen anything that couldnt easily have been a Wikipedia article; apart from the end comments, which arent really going to lead to anything much. Isn't there something to be said for creating pages with overt POVs? For instance you could create a page calling for a worldwide ban on chewing gum (or not), then list the organistations already on side, the organisations that could be persuaded, and discuss ideas, examples, actions and arguments to advance the cause. Obviously anyone who disagreed could start another page to champion the opposing view, and would link between the two. unsigned, 5087 10:31, 9 July 2006, K'o't'Castle :Frankly I don't understand what any of this is about. I thought, erroneously, apparently, that it was about attracting potential allies, voters, in , presenting information about where candidates stand, and letting people make up their own mind from there. :Can't quite figure out where the Lincoln-Douglas debates figure in. Also "NPOV"? Well I can be as Utopian as the next guy, but...MakharramKhan 23:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC) ::I would love to see a debate like during the 1864 campaign. Talk about a meritocracy! Chadlupkes 17:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC) :NPOV is going to be impossible. Fairness is not. There's a difference. What you are talking about is fairness and balance. Encouraging all sides of the issue to contribute to the discussion. That's what we're going to see. If something gets out of control, we can fix it, but people should be able to express their views without resorting to insults and name calling. Chadlupkes 23:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC) :The closest you're going to come to a NPOV campaign is given by The Electoral Corruption Killer's original intent which was to form an Open Proxy Party where you have just one plank in the platform: You're committed to vote however your constituents tell you to vote via their open proxies as publically available via a wesite running software like TECK. The only POV of that sort of campaign is that the populace should have as much power in the political process as stockholders have in corporate votes. Jabowery 01:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC) ::More, actually. According to the current SEC rules, Corporate Boards are not required to adhere to stockholder votes. If a potential board member gets a single vote, they're in. But I digress. Direct Democracy is not true democracy. True democracy requires that the people voting are aware of all sides of the issue, and are educated in the potential options and their potential results. That's why we have a representative form in the US, because 99.99% of the voters are unaware of the details of the issues. Chadlupkes 17:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC) :::Proxy voting is not direct democracy. It is simply a more responsive form of representative democracy. 205.162.201.45 02:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC) I'm trying an experiment in the NPOV/POV issue (which, if successful, could also build awareness of Campaigns Wikia :-)). Specifically, I made an article on The Politics of Slashdot with an explicit request for the maintainence of a certain "Slashdot POV". If and when it looks "sort of ready for prime time" I want to try to get it Slashdotted and see what the rush of people does to the content. Thoughts? - JenniferForUnity 22:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC) It might be useful to try to construct neutral frameworks for discussing issues. When we hear people on CNN or Fox trying to debate by talking through each other, their starting points often appear to be from different planets. If we could list basic questions for some issues in such a way that people with various points of view could answer the same questions in different ways, we might get a better understanding of what's behind the answers. Instead of arguing about whether the U.S. is winning in Iraq, we could start with more basic things like what "victory" would consist of and why that would be a good thing.Deadplanet 01:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)